apm.pakvoter's blog

Electoral reforms initiatives and political parties

apm.pakvoter — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:39:13 +0000

The country has witnessed a political crisis due to protests organized by some opposition political parties for alleged accusations of mass scale organized electoral rigging in General Elections 2013. The episode of accusations and counter accusation levelled by opposition and government consumed at least six months of nation. Recently, the government and opposition reached to agreement of forming judicial commission with set rules to probe the matter. Is it enough for free and fair elections and democratic future of Pakistan? Certainly, it is not.Pakistan electoral processes need broader reforms beside the probing and recommendations of judicial commission. As a matter of fact, the parliamentary committee set for electoral reforms in July 2014 mandated to bring reforms within 90 days have made just two or three meetings and invited suggestions from political parties and civil society groups for electoral reforms. There seems no progress on election reforms initiatives. On the other side, Election Commission of Pakistan also set broader objectives of election reforms in ECP Five Years Strategic Plan 2014-18. The democratic development in Pakistan is in transition state, and any form misappropriation in electoral processes could result into peoples distrust on democracy. Political parties and other stakeholders need to take seriously the initiatives for electoral reforms.The electoral reforms can be constituted in changing in final electoral roll that should consider voters at present address, separate polling day for National and Provincial Assemblies elections, scrutiny and finalization of nomination papers with the help of concerned state departments, voting rights for outside Pakistanis, the use of electronic voting machines, the provision ‘choice of None’ on ballot, political finance regulations especially monitoring of the election expenses, appointment and accountability of District Returning Officers and Returning Officers, fixed timeline of elections, one constituency per candidate to avoid expenses on exchequer and repeated election exercise and some others. Such reforms are the dire need to make democracy work in Pakistan.

Multiparty System and Coalition Governments

apm.pakvoter — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:36:19 +0000

It is often observed that, governments formed on coalition partners whether at National level or in provinces in Pakistan remain busy in safeguarding their coalition governments rather than doing their actual job of delivering on public services to people. From 2002 to onward till 2013 General Elections, all governments save few at center and in provinces were coalition governments. The basis of coalition governments is in multiparty system of elections in Pakistan. As against two party system prevailing in different democratic countries such as USA, Jamaica, and Malta, in multiparty system, citizens have different choices of political parties and individual independent candidates to elect a candidate of their choice.This practice is delivering good democratic trends in countries such as Germany, India, Finland, Brazil, Japan, New Zealand, Pakistan, and so on and so forth. It is also observed that despite the fact that in some countries with multi-party system, two major political parties remain in power largely by turns. For instance, in UK, Germany, India, and also in Pakistan only major political parties forms governments. In Pakistan, similar exercise is being observed since 1970 and two political parties such as Pakistan Peoples Party and Pakistan Muslim League with different flavours remained in power. However, the politics of conflict prevailing in 90s ended and political parties started forming coalition governments even with political rivals. The best example of this practice is observed in 2008, and 2009 when Peoples party formed coalition governments with PML-N and then PML-Q. However, the drawback of this practice was observed that such coalitions were based on give and takes. The governments now remain busy in protecting their coalition partners in any cost. Based on this fact people have now started blaming that these two parties have made collusion to form governments in alternate turns and intend not to deliver public services. The practice of coalition government will remain in Pakistan under multiparty system until there is made changes in system.

The Role of Constructive Opposition

apm.pakvoter — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:35:29 +0000

Political development in Pakistan is passing at critical stage as on the one hand, democracy has succeeded to achieve its continuity through General Elections 2013, and on the other hand, this hitherto recognized smooth transfer of democratic regime face threats based on often alleged accusations of electoral rigging, energy crisis, and ‘friendly opposition’. In view of some citizens’ lead by some political parties, the political party in rule have made collusion with mainstream opposition parties and face no opposition to whatever it is doing in the name of governance. This accusation may be true because in developed democracies, constructive opposition plays significant role in setting governments on right track and as effective tool of governments’ accountability. If opposition in parliament becomes friend with government, the process of accountability can be hindered. Nevertheless, one should make difference between constructive and friendly opposition.In Pakistan, as a matter of fact we can say that democratic development is at stage where both treasury and opposition are evolving constructively. On the one hand, governments are being made on coalition of rival political parties, and on the other hand, opposition now side with government on matters of national interests. The good example is the unanimous and historic decision of ‘National Action Plan’ by all political parties against terrorism in December 2014. Similarly, the politics of political tussle, blame game, and victimization prevailing in 80s and 90s have ended now. However, there is long way to go for good fruits of democracy and its continuity, and political parties will have to adopt international best practices of governance and style of construction opposition. The opposition parties should pressurize the government to follow broader national agenda rather than focusing on regional development according to constitution of Pakistan and also promises made in electoral manifestoes. The opposition, through parliamentary committee system, motions, resolutions, and questions in parliamentary sessions, can make governments accountable for policies adopted and their implementation. If opposition fail to do all this, citizens are right in their accusations of friendly opposition and apprehensions.

Know your candidate

apm.pakvoter — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:27:17 +0000

In developed democracies citizens cast their vote on the basis of political ideology, collective interests, and manifesto of political parties. Nevertheless, in this part of the world where we live, vote is casted based on self-interests, biradary (caste system), language, ethnicity, sectarian affiliation, and local groupings ( dharay bandi ki siyasat). In doing this voters even do not really know the persons to whom he or she is voting. It is also observed that citizens vote candidates or political parties of their likeliness without knowing the profiles of political parties or candidates. Although political parties issue their political manifesto before elections, nonetheless, such manifestos remain locked and are even not read by their ticket holders, the citizens’ access to manifestos is the remote question. The candidates provide their information to election commission that also remain hidden from citizens. As a result, elections brings the parliament comprising a blend of various affiliations, interests, and aspirations.Due to this very fact, governments formed on coalition of political parties and some interest groups often fail to deliver the collective public interests in pursuance of their vested interests and aspirations. In disappointment, citizens think governments’ failure as failure of democracy and start blaming on democracy as flawed and failed system. The need of the time is citizens should learn the relationship of elections with democracy and good governance. Elections held in integrity brings a true government elected by the people through their informed decision. An informed decision is when voters know their political parties and candidates of their choice, their past performances, their manifestos, and their credibility of being good parliamentarian, their social and economic profiles. Such government formed on citizens’ informed decision will deliver good governance according to people aspirations. Only what matters is ‘know your candidate’.

Youth & Politics – How to keep them motivated?

apm.pakvoter — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:52:39 +0000

Young people’s political participation has been a growing concern since long. Loss of community ties, lack of political process, low level of trust on politicians and growing suspension on democratic institutions are many reasons of youngster’s week political association. But recent trends reveal that youth are much more interested into political knowledge than ever before. Labels like “the youth are apathetic” or they do not care about politics are enforced upon them by a status quo that does not understand the needs of young people. Young people are concerned with policy developments and the trajectory that their country is going through.Pakistan is one of the world’s largest youth bulge country with more than 63% of the population under the age of 25. The young and dynamic population is considered as an omen to the prosperity and future of the country. According to ECP, out of the total 85.42 million registered voters, 19.77 per cent of total voters were less than 26 years of age, while 14.91 per cent were between 26 to 30 years. The overall voter turnout recorded in General Election 2013 at 55.02%, much higher than elections since 80’s. The massive registration of the young population in election is an indication of revival of youth engagement in politics.Although, the increased youth engagement in politics is a good sign for flourishing democracy, this gives rise to many questions on how to keep the young blood motivated for future. Several high profile initiatives aiming at youth political participation including the launch of social media campaigns by several parties and the distribution of free laptops to students by the Punjab government has failed to engage youth permanently. These are mere temporary efforts gaining the support during elections. But all the actions seem dying off after the elections. We have yet not witnessed any concrete steps taken by the government to keep youth politically active.There is a strong need to diversify the avenues for youth political participation to discuss national issues. There are several young aspirants out there, who are highly motivated to get involved into politics even at a very young age. What they lack is a platform, where they can enhance their political understanding. The ban on student unions and violent nature of university politics makes it unattractive for youngsters. It is essentially required to build political youth organizations to engage youth in politics and keep them motivated to play best possible role for the future of the country. Engagement of young people should be the responsibility of everyone. Youth engagement should be acknowledged as a stirring strategy to create an impact in the lives of everyone.

Elections and public security

apm.pakvoter — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:42:17 +0000

During 2013 General Elections, I visited polling station to cast vote. I remember the timings of elections when there was high risk of acts of terrorism prevailing. At that time I was stunned to watch police sitting without performing their duties efficiently. The role of police in elections is to serve as agents of law and not that of the government. This role requires that the police maintain its role of a highly professional and politically neutral civil service. Police behavior during elections is an area of concern to everyone interested in democratic strengthening in Pakistan. A vulnerable and insecure environment promotes fear in the public that curtails them to effectively participate in the democratic process. This in turn hinders the adequate carrying out of pre-electoral, electoral and post-electoral phases. Police in Pakistan stands inadequately trained on electoral process and is unaware of their role in the various electoral phases. Our intention in this blog is to highlight the connection that effective policing has with a free, fair and secure electoral process. The pre-electoral campaigns require district-wise security plans to be developed. These security plans are intended to thwart public disorder and chaos and curtail terrorist elements from disrupting political gatherings and campaigns. Under ECP’s guidelines, it is the police who are responsible for taking action against persons disturbing a meeting or otherwise attempting to create a disorder - organizers are prohibited to take any such action themselves. Police is also responsible to ensure that normal functions of life are not disrupted due to political party rallies so as to cause public inconvenience. Police’s role in ensuring that political processions are conducted as per procession plans submitted to them (three days in advance to the event) is important to make necessary security arrangements. Cooperation of political parties and their supporters with the police is important to maintain discipline and minimize chances of security breaches. During polls and casting of votes, the police are required to maintain a vigilant presence on their assigned spots. As the chances of political parties meddling in the electoral process on polling booths are high, it is important that the police takes charge and uphold law and order. Police has to keep a strict eye over miscreants who might indulge in acts of violence. It is important for the police to maintain unbiased attitude while upholding law and carrying out their duties on the polling stations and remaining politically neutral. Accusations of voter intimidation by the police or favoring one party or candidate not only stigmatize the police image but also open up room for citizens’ aggression. The role of police in the post-electoral phase is also of high significance. Once the election results come out, the losing parties and their supporters are usually unhappy. The bitterness and resentment of losing elections can result in confrontations and violent protests. The police are expected to remain cautious of such emerging situations and to play the role of maintaining peace and harmony in their communities. We can well observe that policing is not an isolated activity - Police can only play an effective role during the electoral process if all the stakeholders play their role and carry out their duties. Without the cooperation of citizens, public and private agencies and civil society organizations, maintenance of public security in electoral process would remain a farce and a pipe dream.

Accountability of Politicians and the ‘Court of People’

apm.pakvoter — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:18:30 +0000

We often hear politicians referring to the ‘court of people’ on TV. Whenever some politician is prosecuted against alleged corruption, we hear this ‘mantra’ of ‘the court of people’. The argument goes like this: Since people elected me, so they will decide whether I am crooked or not’. I find this argument absolutely amusing. Never underestimate power of crooked politician in muddling up issues! How can courts of law be interchanged with elections to determine whether somebody is financially clean or not? Elections only determine as to what extent a political party or a politician is able to articulate the demands of people. So, a politician may be extremely good at articulating demands of people and corrupt at the same time. That is why people all over the word have at times ended up electing politicians who later turned out to be corrupt. So, popularity of a politician is not a guarantee that the politician is financially clean as well. When facing corruption charges, they want to go the court of law so that they could dodge corruption charges while riding on the wave of popularity. Another mantra of politicians is political victimization when corruption cases are lodged against them. It is a fact as politicians have victimized each other, especially in the 90s. Police and other agencies have been used as tools by ruling set of politicians for their vested interests, including for selective accountability raising doubts about the way corruption related cases of politicians have been handled. As a consequence, our politicians have ended up politicizing serious issue of corruption. This is where the trouble lies. In other words, corruption is too serious a business to be left alone to the politicians. However, it is these politicians as our elected representatives have to put in place an accountability mechanism which has the legitimacy to conduct across-the-board accountability. In this regard, media, civil society groups and concerned citizens will have to play a crucial role in ensuring that effective accountability mechanisms are put in place at federal level and in all provinces. In this connection, comparative performance of recently established accountability commission in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and National Accountability Bureau can be very instructive after couple of years.

Pakistan's Democracy at Crossroads

apm.pakvoter — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:54:07 +0000

Democracy in Pakistan has historically witnessed multiple deaths in infancy by repeated military takeovers due to a number of reasons. The dilemma of failure of political leadership in initial years to take prompt decisions regarding the type of government and powers of federating units was the first act of weakening the foundations of a strong democratic setup in Pakistan. By delaying these decisions and not holding elections, which is the very foundation of democracy, the initial political leadership undermined establishment of democratic culture and norms by attempts to continue in power by any means which also included obtaining support of military establishment by giving it a formal role in political setup. Emboldened by the dependence of political leadership on military and continued internal political rift creating an unstable political environment, military establishment seized power apparently encashing the public perception to set things right. Democracy, however, became a permanent casualty since then and all intermittent attempts to restore it saw repeated cycles of same political instability, witnessed in the initial years, repeatedly ending up in military takeovers. The necessary ingredients of democracy include free and fair elections followed by setting up of strong and independent institutions of executive, legislature and judiciary. A strong executive is supposed to efficiently run the government as per people’s aspirations in properly defined legal parameters with the basic duty of protection of life, property and economic and political interests of the people. Effective and strong instruments of accountability are a prerequisite for this to oversee the executive from acting as dictators. An effective legislature is supposed to make laws to facilitate the formation and implementation of government’s policies more effective and transparent to align and promote public and state interests. Most important in this respect is the role of judiciary which is supposed not only to ensure that existing laws are being implemented in their true spirit rather it has to check the arbitrariness of executive as well as to provide easy access to justice to every citizen. In view of the above defined ingredients of democracy, it is still a million dollar question whether Pakistan is on the right track to attain these ingredients or it is still under shadow of political culture of its initial years of history. A review of the state of governance in the existing democratic set up with mainstream political parties at the helm of affairs since 2008, there are varying perceptions about credibility of democratic process in Pakistan. Critics question whether Pakistan has been able to strengthen democratic process by ensuring strong institutions of executive, legislature and judiciary? Has the government been successful in ensuring relatively better safety and security of life and property to the citizens as compared to past? Is justice being delivered more promptly and effectively than before? Do the citizens feel enjoying more political rights, civil liberties and greater economic opportunities in a political setup? Though some optimists consider that all these conditions have witnessed improvement and continuity of democratic process will further improve the situation. However, there are others who are of the opinion that leadership is still showing political immaturity like the leadership of initial years. They are of the view that if any party has reservations on election results, what is the harm in obstructing an independent verification of the same. Some also opine that failure to timely evolve and implement a security policy as well as lack of judicial reforms to ensure prompt justice resulted in establishment of military courts which has reduced the space of governance for civilian setup which is in fact failure of civilian establishment and may increase distrust of public in the democratic system. Though pessimistic, but some perception exists about a friendly opposition to government in the garb of reconciliatory politics which has eliminated a strong check on the government. Resultantly, with all these perceptions coupled with failure of political leadership to deliver may result in failure of democracy in the country which will only strengthen the voices who consider Pakistan as unfit for a democratic form of government.

Free and Fair Elections - A Test Case for Democracy

apm.pakvoter — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:40:29 +0000

Though democracy is not all about elections, but still the electoral process has extreme significance in a democratic system as it is the cornerstone of superstructure of democracy. The electoral process gives right to individuals to elect their representatives who ultimately influence political foundation and direction of a government. In any civilized setup, while using the term elections, transparency of the whole process i.e., the same being free and fair is by default covered in the meaning of the term election. This has also been accepted as fundamental human right in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights which sates in its Article 21 that "Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives... The will of people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures." The internationally accepted basic ingredients for elections in an ideal democracy to work are that they should be periodic, genuine, held according to universal suffrage and by secret ballot. For being periodic, there should be an element of certainty of time frame in which they are to be held e.g., four or five years or any legally specified intervals guaranteeing the citizens a chance to change their leaders or support new policies. For being genuine means they should be free and fair offering equal opportunities for contesting candidates and political parties without undue restrictions of law, balanced access to media for all and an independent and neutral electoral process. For ensuring universal suffrage, there should be maximum participation with simple and easy voter registration processes for citizens with bare minimum legitimate restrictions such as age, residence, proof of identity, etc. For being held on the principle of secret ballot, the purpose is to ensure that no one except the voter knows whom he has voted for. The objective is to prevent intimidation or reprisal by those enjoying power in a society either due to their political, administrative or financial status. For making sure that these basic ingredients are a part of any electoral process, there is a need to have a neutral, independent and autonomous institution enjoying trust of the citizens and political parties to conduct elections. In countries like Pakistan which have experienced long stints of dictatorship, the basic ingredients for a free and fair election have always been tampered with by the regimes to obtain results as per their desires. Different methods adopted for this purpose have been uncertainty of their timing, making laws to disqualify ‘undesirable’ political parties who could pose challenge to ruling junta, administrative support to ‘desirable’ parties or candidates and above all maintaining a weak election conducting body which should neither have the will nor the capacity to ensure a free and fair election. Resultantly, the possibility for citizens to express their will and opportunity to change their leaders and address wrongs is lost and credibility of the elections is frequently challenged. Consequently, people lose trust not only in the electoral exercise but also in democracy as elections are foundation of the same. This is generally followed by a political system marked by conflict and instability strengthening the argument of failure of democracy and in most cases leading back into the vicious cycle of dictatorship.

The Duties of Elected Representatives

apm.pakvoter — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:07:13 +0000

An elected representative is an individual voted for by the public to represent their interests. It can also be termed as a person chosen or appointed to act or speak for someone who has authorized him to do so by putting his trust in him through a legally defined process. In political terms, elected representatives are individuals authorized by a certain group of people through a vote to act, speak, legislate and execute certain policies on their behalf in a legislative and executive capacity to pursue a predefined political agenda on the basis of which they were elected by the people. In a modern day democracy, the public representatives elected by the people are generally allied with a particular political party and, therefore, follow their respective political party’s policies. Broadly speaking, the elected representatives in a legislature are divided into two groups i.e., government and the opposition. This divide into government and opposition determines the basic role of an elected representative in a political setup. The representatives of ruling party make policies as per their own vision of governance and enact legislation accordingly. Some of the legislators considered more apt in governance are given executive functions as well, to execute the government policies. These executive office holders are generally the cabinet members of ruling party who assist their leader, the head of government whether a Prime Minister or President, depending upon what type of government is being followed in a country. On the other hand, elected representatives of political parties who represent the opposition, act as watchmen to oversee, highlight as well criticize the policies and legislation being done by the governing party which they consider as a deviation from national objectives or harmful in the larger national interest. The primary duty of all the elected representatives is, however, to debate the pros and cons of every policy and legislation thereupon in the legislature. In a true spirit of democracy, all the elected representatives in legislature after a threadbare discussion on an issue, attempt to accommodate the positive aspects and eliminate negative ones to evolve a policy and legislation with maximum possible consensus. Once such a policy or legislation is adopted, the elected representatives are also supposed to monitor its implementation as well as evaluate its results whether it is delivering the objectives it was supposed to. Any shortfalls, whether in its implementation or legal lacunas are then intermittently reviewed by the elected representatives for taking timely corrective measures so that optimum results are achieved from the said policy for public at large as well as the country. Even in day to day functions of government, the representatives are supposed to put questions as well ask for clarifications regarding any public interest issue from ruling party representatives holding executive positions. The later as a part of their duty as elected representatives, are supposed to give official version with full details of the questions asked to ensure corrective measures as well as transparency and accountability in the government policies. It is, however, interesting to see that whether the elected representatives in Pakistan are delivering or close to what they are supposed to deliver in an ideal representative democracy. Primarily, have the elected representatives with a sound educational background and experience in governance been given priority for selection to executive posts, i.e., cabinet and parliamentary committees? Secondly, do the elected representatives have clarity on short term and long term policy requirements of the country and their voters in the fields of education, economy, commerce, foreign affairs, defense, etc. and their political party’s clarity on these? Over and above all this, are the voters really monitoring the performance of their respective elective representative to ensure that he is performing his duties as mandated; else the people may vote for a better alternate in next elections? In fact, all these factors followed cumulatively will ensure optimum performance of the duties by elected representatives leading to a strong democracy.